Switch from Canon to Nikon - advice on lenses

Started Jul 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,927
Like?
Re: Photographic companies
In reply to BackInTheGame, Jul 16, 2013

BackInTheGame wrote:

I think I was mistaken. You are not a Canon troll. You are just trolling.

So let us just start out with one example. At what point did Nikon provide a top notch AF system to mid-range users? I would say the N90s and F100 film cameras. Would you argue that?

Funny. I guess the Canon EOS 30/33 with faster AF never existed. Nor an EOS 3.

At what point did Canon provide even a decent AF system to mid-range users? I would say the 7D, and even that is debatable. Would you disagree with that? If you know of a earlier Canon body in this class that provided such an AF system, please enlighten me. Also, tell me if there was a difference over all these year in the price of those bodies that would justify AF systems like that in the 5DII and even the 6D.

The 6D has a very, very good AF system.

Go back further. How was the Canon A1 or the AE1 shutter constructed? Was it a cheap camera? No. What was the top shutter speed? Compare it to the FM2/FE2, in every possible respect. Which company did more to provide the best possible tool?

Which company made every effort to maintain the integrity of its users current equipment while working toward advancing the product. Why do you think Nikon seemed to lag with AF and with Digital, and even with full frame. Could it be that by maintaining the F-mount, no user was ever left behind?

Lets see. Non-Ai lenses will damage your D600. MF lenses will not allow metering on many Nikon models. Only AF-S lenses will focus on many Nikon models. Come on.. really.

Consider that the Nikon F-mount has been very difficult to maintain with changing technology, and yet Nikon has done just that, and Nikon still produces some of the very best lenses available.

And Canon does not produce some of the very best lenses available now?

And when Nikon works through the problems involved at each evolutionary step, they have always provided a superior product,

Do how was the Nikon D70 superior to the Canon EOS 20D? How is the Nikon D2X(s) superior to the Canon 1Ds mkII/III? How is the Nikon D2h superior to the Canon 1D mk II? Come on, really.

as they did with the D3/D700. And think about this. When they developed the D3 AF system, they shared that system with the D700 and even the crop sensor D300. Please provide me with any evidence that Canon has done the same sort of things to provide users the best possible product at all levels.

The Canon EOS 60D has a very fast, very accurate AF system, with all cross type sensors. The 6D has a fast, very accurate, very sensitive AFS system with a very sensitive central cross sensor. The size of the central AF elements make it the way it is (no room for 51 points of so so performance).

The 5D mk III arguably has the best AF system around (the 1D-X a more advanced version).

All these cameras have great AF performance.

Maybe you should let me tell you.

When Canon saw the gold in Minolta's AF system they made a quick decision. It would have been more costly to produce AF lenses based on the Canon FD mount (exactly as it was for the Nikon F-mount). But the profits were there for a large company that could flood the market quickly. So out with the FD mount and in with a whole different animal. Never mind the thousands of users stuck with useless FD lenses if they wanted the new cameras. And then again, when Canon went full frame, same story.

Dude, you are writing silly stuff. canon changed the mount for a number of very valid reasons. The FD mount has a very small flange distance. EOS adds 4mm, giving room for AF modules. FD was breach lock. A bit of a problem for making electrical contacts.

EOS mount is very, very smart. A large mount, making 50mm f1 and 85mm f1.2 lenses possible, and well designed contacts. It went for lens AF motors from the start. It was future proof.

Nikon went from pre-Ai to Ai. Not backward/forward compatible. Then to AF with in body motor, copying Minolta's approach. Nikon switched to in-lens motors only later, again causing a compatibility problem with newer cameras like the D40, D40X, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100 for instance.

Canon has had full frame digital long before they had any AF-S lens. It was Nikon who kept saying they would not go FF.

To heck with current users. There was gold out there. To this day you cannot mount crop sensor lenses on Canon full frame cameras.

Only idiots mount "crop sensor" lenses on FF cameras. Or just for fun. I can mount "crop sensor" lenses on Canon FF cameras. So can you. Still makes no sense to want that, though.

Now jump to the 5D/5DII. At the time, a good sensor, but its primary asset was full frame and later pixels. No one else could match it. So it was okay to stick a sorry AF system into a plastic body. It was good for profits, and there were plenty of takers. You would think that once Nikon stepped into digital with well designed, sturdy cameras at the mi-range, Canon would say, "Well, if they are giving their users great build and great AF, we will do the same." Fat chance. And you would think that the new Nikon full frame sensors, the D3/D700, would have spurred Canon into development mode. But it appears all they have been working on is advancing still frame cameras for use with video.

So to finish up here, if I were buying a full frame Canon, it would be that plastic 5DII with a weak AF system. The sensor technology is the same as the current bodies, and you only need to visit DxO to see that. Canon has done some great work with the software side of the equation, but the sensors have not advanced. Nikon, with Sony and some smaller companies, has moved so far ahead of Canon that I am amazed people will still buy that stuff. However, I do realize they have a huge base of fine lenses, and that will hold some users. Canon threw its mid-range users a bone with the AF system in the 5DIII, a system they should have had all along, but Canon wasn't shy about sticking an extra 700 or 800 dollars on the price tag for that AF system and a non-plastic body. Oh, by the way, NO Nikon top tier DX or any full frame DSLR has been built with a plastic body. Does Nikon cost more? I think you can answer that one.

Let me throw out a little caution for anyone holding canon cameras. They saw gold in the Nikon 1 AF system for video, and they have the bit in their teeth on that one. What comes next? Who gets stuck with dead-end technology?

You did ask for details. Here's the last one. I can mount a Nikon 24mm AI lens from the seventies on either my D7100 or my D800E (in fact I just bought one), and I can have some fun. Try that with a FD lens on any Canon DSLR. You will destroy that puppy.

How about this. I can mount my Nikkor-H AUTO 85mm f1.8 and 55mm f3.5 micro (late 60's /early 70's) on my EOS 450D, and meter with it too. Try that with your D7100 and D800E. You will destroy that puppy.

-- hide signature --

Roy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow